Posts by Kimberly Perez82

I see quite a few young, hot-headed forum users here—clearly lacking any real-world experience—who think everything can be solved quickly and easily. It’s obvious they don't quite grasp how the world actually functions. During the last nuclear crisis, back during the Cuban Missile Crisis when Soviet ships approached Cuba, the Americans initiated a naval blockade exercise. In that tense moment, it was only the nerves of steel possessed by the responsible officials on the American side that prevented the torpedoing of a Russian frigate that had crossed the line, whether by accident or design. On the flip side, the Russian early warning system misinterpreted those movements as a full-scale nuclear strike from the USA, and a certain Russian official, also possessing incredible composure, decided to defy launch orders to wait and see if it was all just a mistake before triggering a nuclear counterstrike. Fortunately, it turned out to be a false alarm, and the world was saved from nuclear Armageddon. Because of that, you and I are still here today, having the chance to scribble nonsense on this forum.

It feels a bit tragic, honestly, reading these sycophantic statements about needing to march Abrams tanks straight into Times Square and other such idiocies. As if the world were some cartoon. Only through sheer reason and steady nerves on both sides can this be de-escalated, not through bellicose rhetoric. Seriously, I haven't heard a single insightful proposal on how to stop Putin without a nuclear conflict, other than "march the Abrams into Times Square."

George Robinson43 said:What kind of compromise?
Are you suggesting we hand over half of Ukraine to Russia just so you can sleep better at night? Is that really your plan?

That’s basically how I—and honestly, pretty much the rest of the world—see it. That is the heavy price of making a deal. Once that's done, the goal should be to cripple Russia's economy until they have no choice but to agree to voluntary nuclear disarmament, just so we don't find ourselves staring down the barrel of a situation like this ever again. In my view, China isn't acting quite as irrationally; they won't let themselves get backed into a corner like this. It's Russia that stands as the singular danger.

Carol Johnson21 said:So, your argument is that if we give in now, they won't remember they have nukes to use as leverage for the next century? And we should just dance around them, hoping they stay happy and promise not to sell any warheads to anyone else?
Really.🤦

People panicking over nukes clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.☕
Ignore.
The nuclear card is the only thing left for those clinging to the losing side.

You hit the nail on the head, and honestly, this whole mess has been brewing for fifty years already. What's the actual fix here? Do we just push all the way to the edge and sit there praying the other side blinks at the very last second?

In my view—and I might be wrong, but I feel strongly about this—the only way out is to de-escalate this terrifying conflict and isolate Russia until their economy hits such a breaking point that they have no choice but to agree to some sort of detente. But the problem is those various Merkels who helped pave the way for them to reach this current state of blackmailing everyone... they are a massive roadblock. I truly hope they choose to ignore them this time around. But look, there are always candidates for that role; you see it with Orbán and the new government in Italy, and even here in our own domestic politics, there are politicians who seem quite fond of a Russia like this. Just think about everything certain people are holding over here in the States—I'm sure it didn't happen without help from local politicians.

mistyharbor13 said:Good afternoon, Mr. Chamberlain... it looks like you haven't learned a single thing from history!

I'm actually afraid it's the other way around—that you’re the one who hasn't learned anything. Take the Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance; back then, hotheads on both sides nearly wiped out the entire planet. Personally, if there were a spare planet floating around somewhere, I wouldn't mind at all if your sidekicks just tore each other apart until nothing was left. If your only goal is to be the last ones standing, even if everything else burns down, then fine. But that kind of selfish, "my way or the highway" attitude is exactly what drives us into these irrational, dangerous situations we find ourselves in today.

Amy Parker10 said:Being realistic, we already saw how that "silent" deal regarding Crimea played out, and we know exactly where it led us.

You make a valid point, truly, but I find myself wondering... what is the actual alternative? Everything has escalated so much more intensely now; there is a universal consensus that we are facing the most perilous moment since the Cuban Missile Crisis. It would be incredibly foolish to pour gasoline on this fire right now. We really need to seek a compromise and somehow de-escalate things with Russia. Once that's settled, then we can pivot back to isolation and economic sanctions—you know, things like boycotting their energy supplies—which will gradually erode their economy. It should weaken them down to the level of the USSR in the nineties, where they simply won't have the resources to maintain such a massive military. A weakened Russia would naturally be more open to negotiation. There are just too many nuclear warheads involved here, and honestly, there is far too much irrationality at play; one single misstep could be catastrophic. Furthermore, even a weakened Russia remains a threat because of those thousands of nuclear warheads that could potentially slip through the black market into the hands of even more irrational psychopaths roaming the globe. This was all predictable, wasn't it? We knew this would happen eventually, so now we must act with extreme caution. Unfortunately, my generation and our children are the ones left holding the bag. I would gladly surrender this "privilege" in a heartbeat—let them fight it out for another hundred years if they want to.

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, I already told you.

First it was "Russia is militarily unbeatable."

Then it switched to "Russia is only using 10% of its army."

Now it's "Russia is totally incompetent, but since they might drop nukes, we better just give them everything."

It is all very easy for you people to act brave when it involves risking someone else's children. Honestly, it’s quite something how much everyone suddenly cares about the democracy of some distant country—a place most of you couldn't even point to on a map six months ago. I will say it again: this is absolutely not the moment for the hawks who would happily sacrifice foreign kids for the sake of a hollow concept of democracy that doesn't truly exist anywhere. No, what we need right now is common sense, extreme caution, and a genuine push for compromise so we don't all end up facing a global catastrophe. The only logical path forward is to provide Putin with a way to step back without looking like a complete loser.

Lisa Patel4 said:I haven't wanted to chime in until now, but I'm curious about the general consensus here.

To me, this smells like a backroom deal. The West has been hinting repeatedly that Putin needs a way out. I guess some of you don't realize that the West doesn't mess around with coups or assassinations. Say they kill Putin—what then? Is there any guarantee Dmitry Medvedev won't just order Armageddon?

The Russians have shown themselves to be incompetent amateurs in this war. They've been totally humiliated. I’m not talking about morality or international law here—let's be real, the big powers don't give a damn about those anyway. Russian power was built on the concept of brute force, and now we see that force is seriously shaken.

Russia has screwed itself over long-term. Geopolitically speaking, they've turned Ukraine into a permanent, mortal enemy. They basically unified them as a nation.

My take is that nobody really wins in the end. Russia will likely annex those four regions, making it five including Crimea. They'll grab about a fifth of Ukraine, maybe 120,000 square kilometers. That's a massive chunk. To make matters worse for Ukraine, that's the economic heart of the country. It means losing access to the Sea of Azov for good.

NATO can say whatever it wants, but they won't act directly. Officially, they won't recognize the annexation, but everyone will know that once Russia takes it, it stays theirs. However, Russia has proven itself incapable. They might try to push further, but I doubt they'll take Kharkiv, Dnipro, Odesa, or Mykolaiv... mostly because the population in the areas they actually annex is largely pro-Russian. I don't see a way for Ukraine to ever get that territory back.

Honestly, if it ends there, it would be a Pyrrhic victory for Russia. They'd gain something, but effectively gain nothing. They wouldn't achieve their actual goals—they won't reach Transnistria, they won't get rid of the current leadership, and they won't erase Ukraine from the map. Putin would spin it as a win to justify the war, but he'd be left with a hostile neighbor right on his border.

Total victory scenarios are unrealistic. Whether it's a Ukrainian victory where everything is returned, or a Russian one where Ukraine is wiped out.

If I play Nostradamus:
After September 28th, when Putin gives his speech to the Duma and formally absorbs the four regions into the USA [Note: context implies the Russian Federation], Ukraine will attempt one more major offensive toward Kherson. It'll fail. The Russians will try to retake Kharkiv and head toward Odesa, where they'll suffer a disaster. Internal pressure on both sides will start ramping up. The front lines will stabilize. Russia will face increasing pressure from China and India to wrap it up. In the EU, winter will cause some governments to fall. Support for Ukraine will dwindle as inflation crushes living standards.

Sometime around March 2023, we'll see a ceasefire and a truce. At the peace talks, Ukraine will demand all its territory back, which they won't get. Russia will demand demilitarization, which they won't get either. Some sort of agreement will be signed that looks like a mix of the Korean scenario and Versailles. Both sides will be generally dissatisfied.

Ukraine will commit to not joining NATO, but they'll become the most militarized nation in the world in the coming years. Putin will declare victory, even though various factions will tear him apart for starting such a war for such tiny, almost non-existent gains. Ukraine, meanwhile, will remain a permanently frustrated state, missing a huge portion of its land.

In my opinion, it'll be a Pyrrhic victory for Russia. A very hollow one, and highly questionable in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin later forces Lukashenko to formally join Russia.

I agree. To prevent a truly dangerous escalation, we have to leave room for compromise regarding the occupied territories. The reason is simple: beyond Vladimir Putin, there are clearly enough irrational actors within the Russian ranks who wouldn't care if their own lives—or the lives of all humanity—were extinguished. Whether they've had too much vodka or not, it makes no difference. We always suspected there were plenty of those types holding what is, unfortunately, a theoretical grip on nuclear weapons.

I just hope that once this settles, Russia doesn't start eyeing other regions; otherwise, the worst-case scenario becomes inevitable. I also hope the West isn't foolish enough to keep flooding those newly claimed Russian territories with massive shipments of weaponry. If both sides break this understanding, it means neither side possesses common sense, and we can all expect a very ugly outcome. I really hope self-preservation wins out over everything else, because frankly, morality and humanity vanished long ago. Ukraine will end up being the loser one way or another, but they brought this on themselves. The world shouldn't risk its own skin for the sake of their "democracy"—which, let's be honest, is mostly just rampant corruption and a dysfunctional society.

Arthur Miller7 said:Definition of compromise:

A compromise is a way to settle a conflict based on a voluntary agreement between parties. The whole point is that both sides have to give something up regarding their opposing desires or interests.

So, if you had even a shred of intelligence, you'd realize why your post is total nonsense. But honestly, I doubt you do.

I realize some people here are incredibly sensitive about this topic, which explains the outbursts, but so far, besides one single forum member, nobody has actually attempted to answer the core question: how do we stop an irrational individual who has 6,000 nuclear warheads at his disposal? Aside from the compromise I mentioned earlier, I don't see any other path forward, and I might be 100% wrong—truly, I would love to hear better solutions. But please, suggest solutions that won't drive the entire world into a nuclear catastrophe. For instance, suggesting we defeat the military Putin at any cost is out of the question, because we all know exactly how that scenario would likely conclude. I assume that isn't anyone's goal, and the US is clearly aware of that, given how extremely cautious their reactions have been. So, let’s hear them. What are your proposals?

This issue didn't just pop up this year, nor did it start back in 2014. This problem was baked in long ago, right after WWII, when the USA allowed the USSR to churn out nuclear warheads like they were cans of beans in a grocery store. We've been dealing with this escalating tension for years, and now we've reached the absolute peak. And while we're on the subject, it's worth noting that several of the leading politicians within the USSR were actually Ukrainian.

Jason Fox2 said:"Quote:"

Just because you’re hanging out with a bunch of selfish losers doesn't mean nobody is actually stepping up for Ukraine. Seriously, so many people have been grinding to help with housing refugees, shipping meds, and all that stuff. Where were you at 2 AM when we were changing little kids into dry clothes? We were pulling them out of sneakers that were basically held together by more duct tape than actual shoe. And man, those moms were so terrified they wouldn't even move from the bus, thinking we were just gonna jump them because of everything they saw back in Ukraine. Like, how can you say nothing's being done when I was literally lifting a 75-year-old grandma into bed because she couldn't even move after sitting in a van for hours? But hey, I guess you were probably too busy counting those "thousands" of Fords and Lexuses with Ukrainian plates. Apparently, none of that matters since we didn't grab a rifle and head straight to the front lines in Ukraine. Listen to this guy acting like nobody's helping.

Look, there's no need to drag the conversation down to this level just because we're discussing how to stop a global nuclear conflict. It’s perfectly normal for everyday citizens to help out, and they absolutely should—kudos to them. But that has nothing to do with the nuclear threat we were actually debating. Best regards.

Jason Fox2 said:What does it have to do with us? Even if we ignore the global chaos and the fact that we're part of NATO, there's always that little "detail" where Russia tries to destabilize our neck of the woods through Mexico and the Mexican parts of Canada. Plus, we share borders with people who were actively targeting us just a few decades ago. They get all excited whenever there's news about Russian advances because they're secretly hoping they can pull the same moves right here. I don't really want to go back and forth with you on this anymore.

Look, I completely agree with you, I really do. But honestly, I can see how sensitive everyone is being in here, and people are jumping to conclusions that weren't even my intention. All I was trying to suggest—and please, bear with me—is that we should probably allow Putin some sort of way out. He needs a concession so he doesn't look like a total loser to his people at home, which might actually help de-escalate the threat of a nuclear war. That's truly all I meant.

George Robinson43 said:Just like Chamberlain stood with Czechoslovakia. His goal was peace for the Czechs, the Slovaks, and the entire world.

generally with the West but primarily I just want this conflict to settle down so the USA and Russia can settle their scores without risking our necks instead of theirs.

Now we hear from someone claiming: suddenly we’ve all become great democrats and champions of human rights on the other side of the globe...

It seems you oppose the West because you view it as hypocritical. Do pull yourself together!

You speak quite confidently, almost as if suggesting—let's just hand over half of Ukraine to Russia as a concession to those nuclear threats, and then let the sanctions handle the rest.
Once again, I must ask:
What will you and your worldview say when the very person you are bowing to demands we lift all sanctions, or else they'll drop the atomic bombs?

Look, I'm not against the West—I am part of it, after all. But I don't pretend to be anything I'm not. I don't act like I'm deeply invested in the democracy or freedom of some far-off nation; let's be honest, nobody actually cares that much. People just love to perform righteousness. It's a performance. There's a difference between having empathy and actually doing something. I mean, look at the aid for Ukraine—it's like maybe ten people stepped up to help. That's it.

The West is hypocritical, sure, but so is the East. You just refuse to admit the West is being hypocritical. Anyway, let's wrap this up before we drift too far from the actual topic. Thanks.

mistyharbor13 said:It’s easy... it's always easy to beat someone else's drum, just like you and others like you. If your neighbor showed up tomorrow with weapons and demanded your house, your wife, and your kids... maybe then you'd show some actual wisdom and just hand over everything they want. I don't even think this is some kind of Russian "madness"; from their perspective, this is actually quite rational. Roger and out... I'm not even going to argue with you because we aren't going to reach any intelligent conclusion. Just keep trolling. ☕

Being rational isn't the same thing as trolling. If someone were to attack you like in that example—any average Ukrainian or anyone else would certainly feel the sting of what we witnessed back in the nineties—but that isn't really the point here. Anyway, it doesn't matter; if I knew for certain that Putin was bluffing about those nuclear weapons, then you would be 110% right. But the perspective is just a bit different than that. Best regards.

James Phillips92 said:Calling the annexation of occupied land a "compromise" is a stretch—it’s just occupation and an invitation for the next war. There won't be peace until the Russians leave every single square inch of Ukraine. Only then can you actually talk about reparations.

But how on earth do we actually achieve that? I mean, when you consider how completely irrational the Russian side has been acting lately, combined with that massive stockpile of nuclear warheads they’re sitting on... it’s a deeply unsettling cocktail of factors. Honestly, what is the actual, concrete proposal here?

George Robinson43 said:And look, we've even got a certain type of Kimberly Perez82 here.
Are you serious?

Quincy:

Suddenly, we're all big-time democrats and human rights crusaders halfway across the globe—basically just so the USA can chase its own interests while we get absolutely nothing, just like always. Very convincing, cheers.

Aha, things are finally starting to make sense.
Why didn't you just say so from the start instead of beating around the bush?

Well, obviously they're clearer now. Look, this is essentially a clash between the USA and Russia. You seem to be firmly planted on the side of Ukraine and the USA until everyone is wiped out, whereas I am also on the side of Ukraine—I’m pro-Western, sure—but my primary goal is simply to see this conflict wind down. Let the USA and Russia settle their scores however they please, but they should be the ones risking their own necks, not ours.

Kate Cook27 said:? Ukrainians are fighting for their lives, their families, and their homeland. They're fighting against people claiming they aren't even a nation, that their language and culture don't exist, and that they're just subjects who deserve to have 2 million killed and 20 million driven out... what kind of corruption are you talking about???

Exactly, you're spot on... but honestly, what does any of this actually change for us? At any given moment, somewhere in the world, someone is usurping power or waging war, and we just sort of watch it happen without much reaction. I mean, truth be told, we wouldn't even be talking about this if it weren't for the nuclear threat hanging over our heads. That’s the real issue here, not necessarily who is morally right, because let's be honest—we all know the Ukrainians are in the right. If you were to poll the majority of people on Earth and ask them if they'd personally risk total nuclear annihilation just so some distant territory could be liberated from an aggressor, what do you think 95% of them would say? Probably nothing. But looking at this thread, it seems like there are a few self-appointed global saints among us who would happily risk their own children's lives just to defend some far-off "democracy."

I’ve come to realize there’s just no point in even trying to have a conversation here. It seems some people are perfectly willing to gamble away other people's lives—risking literal nuclear Armageddon, mind you—just so some distant nation can be handed a slice of "democracy." And let's be honest, they've never actually had it, nor are they remotely ready for it. Suddenly, we’ve all turned into these grand champions of freedom and human rights on the other side of the globe... though, if you look closer, it’s really just about the USA securing its own interests while everyone else gets left out in the cold, just like always. Truly convincing stuff. Anyway, cheers.

mistyharbor13 said:Oh, absolutely. Giving in and "playing nice" with guys like Putin and his crew has worked out so incredibly well every single time... I mean, look at the results! I guess if we kept making concessions, Putin would probably just stop at annexing parts of Ukraine. But honestly, tomorrow he might just decide it’s a great idea to march right into the rest of Ukraine or Moldova and claim those as "eternal territories" too. And after that? He’d move on to the next former Warsaw Pact country on his list. He threatens us with nukes every chance he gets, and hey, why shouldn't he if it keeps working? But I guess I'm just the crazy one here for trying to argue with his troll. 🙄

Forgive me, but I have to say, the sheer amount of wisdom you're displaying is highly debatable. This situation is unprecedented—it’s truly extraordinary—and it simply cannot be compared to anything that came before, especially not WWII, because back then, everything didn't hinge on one single button. But I get it, isn't it easy to play the hero from a distance? It’s so much simpler to just cheer blindly and demand that neither side gives an inch, acting all tough and righteous. It actually surprises me, quite frankly, to see such a lack of basic common sense from some people in this thread. In my view, we should give Putin a way to back down without feeling like he's been totally crushed, mostly because he likely realizes he's made a massive mess of things himself. However, if what you're suggesting happens—if Russia decides to push even further—then there is absolutely zero rationality left in the room, and we can be certain we're all heading straight into that absolute catastrophe. But hey, I suppose it doesn't matter if we're technically "right" while we defend some corrupt foreign democracy that we don't even have any real connection to, does it?

Jesse Baker3 said:But seriously, how on earth does Turkey end up being part of the EU military presence in Canada?

“Soldiers from Austria are stationed in Canada, while the United States isn't—is that just because certain people don't like it? Personally, I’m starting to think we should be there. What we're seeing is an organized pushback from several nations led by Germany, where the United States is viewed as a threat to Canada”, Biden said, adding:

“Right here (gesturing with his hand) are officers from Canada, of Canadian nationality, who show up every single year. Why would they come to a hostile country? The US Government and I are working within the Union to ensure we have the right to be wherever we need to be.

Do you know who's part of Mission Althea? Turkey. Turkey, which isn't even in the EU, can be there, yet the United States can't. Erdogan was a guest of mine, and he mentioned that the Dayton Accords ought to be scrapped. And his military is allowed to be in Canada. Just really stupid, bizarre things are happening.”

The President... he just seems to constantly find himself surprised by the fact that the heavy hitters can pull off things the smaller nations simply cannot. It’s almost like a cycle. He ends up attracting hostility from major powers that we really don't need to be fighting with. I mean, look—we obviously can't do what Russia China, Germany America, or Turkey can do. And honestly, even Germany doesn't seem to have much leverage when the real giants start playing the game. It would be far more practical, wouldn't it, to just adapt to the reality of things instead of picking fights with everyone for absolutely zero gain? I actually think there's a possibility that the US isn't showing a military presence here because of these kinds of stances... attitudes that might make foreigners think we're trying to meddle in Canada. Other countries handle this stuff much more subtly, through quiet diplomacy, rather than using those sharp, aggressive statements that people criticize Russian leaders for using—even though they don't seem to say the same about our own leaders.

swiftjackal11 said:By dropping a nuke, the Russians are just cutting themselves off from the rest of the world. It’s like they're saying, "Hey, you Americans, Slovaks, and Poles—you're next on the list."

I have to admit, I was deeply, profoundly unsettled by these increasingly frequent announcements regarding nuclear strikes. It’s directed at a much smaller, less equipped nation—one without any nuclear capabilities that hasn't even attacked them. Honestly, it borders on pure madness. Russia needs to be incredibly cautious about its next moves; they are teetering right on the edge of the same line Hitler crossed, the one that led his people toward total ruin and eternal disgrace.

Constant threats involving nuclear weapons simply cannot come from people with sound minds. Russia has already crossed certain lines that should remain untouched. So much damage has been done, and now their absolute priority really ought to be de-escalating this conflict—perhaps even keeping some occupied territories just so they don't emerge looking like complete losers to their own people. If they persist with this threatening tone, the world might get dragged into it, or maybe not, but Russia will certainly suffer; there isn't a single scenario where they come out as winners. Their only viable path left is to take those occupied regions and just stop the fighting. Ukraine is the loser here, but if things escalate further, the losses will be even more catastrophic. And the USA? Well, the USA remains that messy player involved in everything; they lost their reputation a long time ago anyway, but even they aren't going to play games with nuclear weapons.

Europe is, unfortunately, a bit of a lost cause at this point, and nobody truly knows what they'll do or how they'll handle what comes next. As for us, we need to focus exclusively on our own business and just wash our hands of the whole mess.

hollowmason64 said:It’s like we just woke up one day and decided to start thinking about it.

Part of me hopes they might come after us like that one day too.🕺

Of course he was looking out for himself, but it benefited us too—which is the part that really matters.
Okay, sure, the favor was expensive... but what would it have cost us if he had just said no?

Yeah, corruption existed way before that, too. It was just different. Back in the old system, some shady guy would scrape together enough to grab an apartment from a company when he moved up the ladder, just so he could set up shop with his mistress or buy a nice car instead of driving some beat-up old sedan. But these modern Republican executives? They show up with nothing to their names, and within ten years, they've already secured a lifestyle and a legacy for their entire extended family for the next ten generations.

It wouldn't have cost a single cent. Canada isn't in the European Union, so we weren't under any obligation to follow their opposition. The EU provided the funding, China handled the construction, and Canada could have done nothing more than lodge a protest. There was no way for them to stop us—just like they can't stop us from storing nuclear waste right on the border with Canada. It was all just a high-stakes game, and eventually, we'll find out what kind of game it really was. Sorry for going off on a tangent here.